Legislation that would restrict what university professors could say in their classrooms was introduced yesterday in Ohio.

Judging from reactions in other states where similar bills have been considered, controversy won抰 be far behind.

Marion Sen. Larry A. Mumper抯 "academic bill of rights for higher education" would prohibit instructors at public or private universities from "persistently" discussing controversial issues in class or from using their classes to push political, ideological, religious or anti-religious views.

Senate Bill 24 also would prohibit professors from discriminating against students based on their beliefs and keep universities from hiring, firing, promoting or giving tenure to instructors based on their beliefs.

Mumper, a Republican, said many professors undermine the values of their students because "80 percent or so of them (professors) are Democrats, liberals or socialists or card-carrying Communists" who attempt to indoctrinate students.

"These are young minds that haven抰 had a chance to form their own opinions," Mumper said. "Our colleges and universities are still filled with some of the � and � profs that were the anti-American group. They抳e gotten control of how to give people tenure and so the colleges continue to move in this direction."

Joan McLean, a political-science professor at Ohio Wesleyan University, said Mumper抯 legislation is misguided and would have a chilling effect on the free-flowing debate that is a hallmark of democracy.

"This is not the kind of democracy we think we抮e spreading when we hear President Bush抯 words. What we抮e celebrating is our ability to not control information."

Besides, McLean said, who would define what issues could not be discussed?

The language of Mumper抯 bill comes from a 2003 booklet by conservative commentator David Horowitz that lays out how students can persuade universities to adopt the "bill of rights." The booklet says it is "dedicated to restoring academic freedom and educational values to America抯 institutions of higher learning."

The issue has gone national.

Horowitz created Students for Academic Freedom, a group based in Washington that has chapters on 135 campuses, to promote his views.

On the other side, the American Association of University Professors, which has thousands of members at hundreds of campuses, argues that eliminating controversial issues from courses waters down academic freedoms.

Mumper said he抯 been investigating the issue for months and has heard of an Ohio student who said she was discriminated against because she supported Bush for president.

"I think the bill asks that colleges and universities be fair in their approach to their education of students," Mumper said. "They need to have their rights defended and need to be respected by faculty and administrators."

In a Kenyon College publication, President S. Georgia Nugent called Horowitz抯 thinking "a severe threat" to academic freedom.

"I see this so-called bill of rights, the platform that he has constructed, as one that would explicitly introduce into college and university appointments a kind of political litmus test," she said.

Mumper said he will "push this all the way" so that it抯 approved by either the legislature or by individual universities.

When a similar proposal was considered in the Colorado legislature last year, it was withdrawn after state universities agreed to some of its principles. The issue also has been debated in Indiana and considered in Congress.

Perhaps if the liberals in higher education would act according to their own supposed principles of free speech and tolerance, rather than just paying them lip service and visciously attacking anyone who disagrees with them, no one would see the need for such a bill. If you go to www.thefire.org you'll see that the vast majority of free speech and other such violations that occur on college campuses are liberals discriminating against conservatives. It's certainly not all of them, but it's most of them. You reap what you sow is all I can say. I just can't wait for the excuses you'll make for the liberal side of this monstrosity, Info.

hey careful there K, having an education does just lump some of us together.. being a dumbass is universal with or without the education... trust me, I have seen some of the most uneducated people think they KNOW what the solution is for everything and I have tolerated them having that opinion...up to the point it effects my life

Part of the problem is the liberal definition of "tolerance." Live and let live isn't enough by their standards, tolerance according to most liberals I speak to means approval. I know plenty of Christians who tolerate homosexuality in that, while they may not like it for various reasons, they refrain from trying to impose their views on people, and don't try to force gays to live a certain way against their will. That's not enough for a lot of people. If you don't accept and flat out love everything about someone, you're intolerant in their view.

My own personal view is that people will live how they choose to live, and unless it adversely affects me and my life or anyone else's, it's absolutely none of my business or anyone else's.

I agree that college campuses have really become liberal echo chambers. However, I don't think the answer is the government stepping in. Having a watch dog group for academic freedom would be a better idea. The political pressure that can be brought on to professors like Ward Churchill is an example that it could work. Horowitz knows all about censorship on college campuses. If you guys remember a few years ago he tried to take out advertising at college newspapers and put an article in about why African Americans should not get reparations. If my memory serves me correctly he tried to print it in 50-60 college papers and only about 7 printed. Out of the 7, college students stole a large majority of the papers in one college and another apologized for printing the article. I have a hard time believing after all that Horowitz would be advocating censorship. At the same time colleges that get tax payers money should do a much better job at giving the other side of issues. Howowits was on TV last night and said that in his entire time at college he never had a teacher bash the president. Of the 12 or so republicans at the college he spoke at every single one had a teacher that bashed Bush.
On a "environmental science" test I took there was a question about what perspective a certain group had. The perspective was basically a global socialist one. The group believed that because the United States was wealthy it should send large amounts of money to poorer countries and poor people of the world. I got major points taken off because I used the term socialism instead of "a fairer distribution of land and wealth." The bottom line is colleges should provide an education not brainwashing.

hey careful there K, having an education does just lump some of us together.. being a dumbass is universal with or without the education... trust me, I have seen some of the most uneducated people think they KNOW what the solution is for everything and I have tolerated them having that opinion...up to the point it effects my life

I know what you'e saying. I was just being a smart-ass

But the belief that many on the left hold, of their intellectual superiority, is ridiculous. I just go nuts everytime I see them put out a new "fake" report like IQ scores by state, etc. If you ever saw that one, you'd wonder why some major newspapers were actually stupid enough to publish it! They had whole states with IQ's each a whole standard deviation above or below the mean. LOL. And all of the east cost "liberal" states were given ridiculous avg. IQ's like 115, etc. Considering 98 is the mean IQ in US for ~300,000,000 people it's ridiculous to believe these numbers. Yet, some dumb newspapers published them b/c they said democrats are smarter than republicans, LOL. And re: the teachers, I personally believe that if there were no unions and the unions didn't scare their people into voting democrat the teachers union, etc. would all dissolve and the 60-40 split in the union members would be much closer to 50-50 +/- a few pts.

I would hate to see the gov't stepping in. We can go down a nasty slippery slope when you have this much control. I met plenty EXTREME liberals in college but college students (for the most part) are able to think for themselves and not be brainwashed. I'm a middle of the road kind of guy and don't like either extreme of conservatism or liberalism (based on my perceptions of conservatism and liberalism which may be different from yours) but I would just let both extremists rant all they want just to prevent government intervention. When the government intervens they do it because they assume something is very messed up, or not set up in a way which benefits them.

To me this is similar to the gov't controlling supplemets because 1 idiot out 5 million killed himself due to irresponsible use of some substance which the rest have used safely.

The liberal definition of tolerance is free speech for me and not for thee. If you have an opposing view on any issue they have a name to call you that ends in phobic or ism.

Now, now. Let's look at both sides. Likewise, if you dissagree with a conservative they call you unpatriotic, communist or secular (GASP!). I consider myself a moderate, and have been called intolerant by extreme liberals, and unpatriotic by extreme conservatives. I tell you, the latter pisses me off far more than the former. Challenge my patriotism!!? Heck, thems fightin' words! The point is there are jerks on both sides.

I am a college professor, and while I agree that one shouldn't push ones opinion on students (especially when it distorts the facts), you do have the right to express your opinion as certainly do the students. You do need to state that is IS only your opinion, however. I also believe that one of the missions of a University is to challenge your beliefs. It's how knowledge and society progresses. Generally scientific laws start as opinions, then become hypotheses, then theory, and so on as facts are found. If no one challenged anyones beliefs, we'd all still believe the earth is the center of the universe, or that diseases are caused by demons.

I too would fear that this sort of legislation, while meant to allow fair exchange of ideas might be misconstued into limiting class content and student evaluation. I realize this is most applicable to social or political sciences (which are heavily based on opinion, BTW), but what if someone decides they find something about a science doesn't agree with their beliefs? For instance there is the creationism evolution debate (I know I am gonna catch hell on this one). So, if a biology professor does not teach creationism, would he/she be affected by this legislation? Or does a physics professor have to give a student credit for quoting Genesis on an exam question about the Big Bang theory? Likewise, the presentation of creationism should not be restricted in a theology or philosophy class just because the Biology department doesn't agree with it.

All in all, the government should not be involved in legislating class content. That should be left to the University. BTW, there are lots of right leaning Universities. In fact, where I live there are only two state Universities, yet at least a dozen religious based universities. If you really don't like what's being taught at yours, try a different one.

Also, this legislation supposes that there is currently no mechanism by which a student can challenge how he or she is evaluated. In my classes (and all that I know of) students are ENCOURAGED to challenge the "correct" answer on an exam. If a student comes up with an alternate answer, and can defend it logically, I give them full credit ("just because" is not a good answer).

Since I teach in the sciences, this is a fairly straight forward process. In the humanities, this becomes a little more difficult--but that is why there are Department Chairs, and Faculty Oversight committees. I know if I had been given an unfair evaluation when I was a college student and I felt it was the result of a professors personal beliefs, I would have gone screaming all the way to the State Regents.

I also agree that students opinions are far less easily influenced than most people think. Generally, I believe a students view of the world is based more on their 18 or so years of upbringing, pop-culture, and even geographical location rather than on a 3 credit philosophy class. If your political leanings can be completely changed by a few hours with your poli-sci prof, then perhaps you didn't really lean that way to start with.

Now, now. Let's look at both sides. Likewise, if you dissagree with a conservative they call you unpatriotic, communist or secular (GASP!). I consider myself a moderate, and have been called intolerant by extreme liberals, and unpatriotic by extreme conservatives. I tell you, the latter pisses me off far more than the former. Challenge my patriotism!!? Heck, thems fightin' words! The point is there are jerks on both sides.

I have never heard anyone called unpatriototic. I have heard several liberals say make that charge. I'm about as conservative as you get and I don't agee with a lot that the Bush administration has done. I agree with what your saying though. Republican have thier own hypocracy on certian issues. For example, they say they are for free speach but are against Flag burning and or they think pornography should be banned.

I too would fear that this sort of legislation, while meant to allow fair exchange of ideas might be misconstued into limiting class content and student evaluation. I realize this is most applicable to social or political sciences (which are heavily based on opinion, BTW), but what if someone decides they find something about a science doesn't agree with their beliefs? For instance there is the creationism evolution debate (I know I am gonna catch hell on this one). So, if a biology professor does not teach creationism, would he/she be affected by this legislation? Or does a physics professor have to give a student credit for quoting Genesis on an exam question about the Big Bang theory? Likewise, the presentation of creationism should not be restricted in a theology or philosophy class just because the Biology department doesn't agree with it.

I skimmed the bill and I think what they had in mind was more for political speech. The problem is it's something that really can't be enforced and gets into a slippery slope argument. As you pointed out they could go into to science labs and tell them that they have to teach creationism. Where would it stop? To be fair there are allot of professors who have some pretty eccentric beliefs.I know of one professor of woman studies who literally believes that consensual sex between a man and a woman is rape to the woman. I had a professor come in a class I was taking and do short talk on woman and prison. She literally believed that woman should not be punished for crimes they commit ........that would include murder. She has the right to believe what she wants though. I have the right to disagree with her. I could see someone like that giving grades based on the level people agree with her which is wrong but I can't see how passing legislation could stop that. Even if they did it would do more harm than good.

I also agree that students opinions are far less easily influenced than most people think. Generally, I believe a students view of the world is based more on their 18 or so years of upbringing, pop-culture, and even geographical location rather than on a 3 credit philosophy class. If your political leanings can be completely changed by a few hours with your poli-sci prof, then perhaps you didn't really lean that way to start with.

I took a sociology class a few years ago. The class was of course mired in allot of left wing material. At the end of the class the majority of the people in it walked away thinking that capitalism was an evil thing and the cause of much of the problems in the world. So classes and professors opinion do have an effect on influencing the attitudes and opinions of students.However, the solution is not having the government stepping in.

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
The liberal definition of tolerance is free speech for me and not for thee. If you have an opposing view on any issue they have a name to call you that ends in phobic or ism. Now, now. Let's look at both sides. Likewise, if you dissagree with a conservative they call you unpatriotic, communist or secular (GASP!).

What I posted is pretty much true. If you are against affirmative action or illegal immigration you are a racist. If you are against some aspect of the gay agenda you are a hetrocentric homophobic bigot. It could be also labeled as flat out hate speech. The left loves to label their opposition so they don't have to debate the issues.

I took a sociology class a few years ago. The class was of course mired in allot of left wing material. At the end of the class the majority of the people in it walked away thinking that capitalism was an evil thing and the cause of much of the problems in the world. So classes and professors opinion do have an effect on influencing the attitudes and opinions of students.However, the solution is not having the government stepping in.

I would argue that the soc prof made an arguement that was somewhat reasonable, if that many people bought it, right? The question is, a few years out (or even a few months), do they still buy it? Maybe, maybe not. It's one thing to convince someone for 15 weeks, and quite another to convince them for a lifetime. The thing is, that no matter what is taught at the University level, eventually around 50% of the students will still consider themselves a little left of center and the other 50% a little right of center. It's always been that way. There are forces trying to influence you both ways, ie. soc class on Thursday, Church on Sunday. Eventually, everyone makes up their own mind, and the government just needs to trust that we can do this without legislative intervention.

I know of one professor of woman studies who literally believes that consensual sex between a man and a woman is rape to the woman. I had a professor come in a class I was taking and do short talk on woman and prison. She literally believed that woman should not be punished for crimes they commit ........that would include murder.

LOL. That's exactly why I loved college. Classes like that make it easier to sit through something dry like calculus. I would hope that they encouraged discussion on those topics, in fact that may have been the point. It's fun to start "spirited" debates in class (ie. arguments). It shows that the students are thinking about the subject--which is ultimately the goal.

Part of the problem is the liberal definition of "tolerance." Live and let live isn't enough by their standards, tolerance according to most liberals I speak to means approval. I know plenty of Christians who tolerate homosexuality in that, while they may not like it for various reasons, they refrain from trying to impose their views on people, and don't try to force gays to live a certain way against their will. That's not enough for a lot of people. If you don't accept and flat out love everything about someone, you're intolerant in their view.

My own personal view is that people will live how they choose to live, and unless it adversely affects me and my life or anyone else's, it's absolutely none of my business or anyone else's.

I think the classic Politically Correct professor is as odeous as they come, but to outlaw them from speaking their mind is called throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and is a cover for the war on any who might dessent from the Neo-Politically Correct- Cons. You are just substituting legal right wing intolerance for a cultural left-wing intolerance.

This would be a massively dangerous thing to do, to stifle out all dissent.

Being tolerant of the intolerant is exactly what the ACLU does when they protect the KKK's right to march. That's dedication to a principle.

What I posted is pretty much true. If you are against affirmative action or illegal immigration you are a racist. If you are against some aspect of the gay agenda you are a hetrocentric homophobic bigot. It could be also labeled as flat out hate speech. The left loves to label their opposition so they don't have to debate the issues.

Will you ever move beyond sweeping generalities? "The Left" covers half the political spectrum and you can always pick out an extreme example and paint the whole waterfront with it. If you give a specific example, I might even agree with you. Paint "the Left" in its entirety with that brush, I call you a liar.

Will you ever move beyond sweeping generalities? "The Left" covers half the political spectrum and you can always pick out an extreme example and paint the whole waterfront with it. If you give a specific example, I might even agree with you. Paint "the Left" in its entirety with that brush, I call you a liar.

Ok then, I was talking about the far left. The problem is the dem. party is now almost totally associated with the far left. Pelosi, Dean, Kerry, and Kennedy are all examples of the far left and right now they are they face of the democrat party. Can you name a moderate democrat other than Leiberman?
I just gave you examples in what you quoted and in my previous post on this thread.It's your choice if you want to ignore them and change the subject to something else. You can call me a liar all you want but to prove that I am a liar is something else. I have not said anything that isn't true nor have I deliberately deceived or deliberately wrote anything I knew to be false.

I would argue that the soc prof made an arguement that was somewhat reasonable, if that many people bought it, right? The question is, a few years out (or even a few months), do they still buy it? Maybe, maybe not.

The problem is that there was no representation of the other side of the issues. The entire class was 100 percent skewed to the left.

This problem with this is, is it restricts PRIVATE university teachers, I really cant wait to see this reach right around and bite the republicans in the ass, not that I'm a fan of liberals, but forcing academic equalism of this nature is not only dangerous its stupid. I can imagine Jerry Fallwell throwing a fit when Christian private universities are forced to teach the merits of a homosexual lifestyle, satanism, atheism, evolution, science, and the arts. I really think most would agree this is illogical, invasive, and stupid we're talking about people paying out of their own pocket to go to a school of their choice, with politics of their choice, and having someone dictate what their teacher can or cannot teach and having the effects reach into non political subjects like math and science, etc, I guess I really am a Libertarian, this reeks.

I can see it now, MIT or Berkeley biology course , teacher explaining DNA, baptist students gets up and screams 'this is against my religious views, you are violating section 5020204904 of the student law code, you cant teach about dna! its all a lie from the liberal media!'

I can see it now, MIT or Berkeley biology course , teacher explaining DNA, baptist students gets up and screams 'this is against my religious views, you are violating section 50202035353thydf4904 of the student law code, you cant teach about dna! its all a lie from the liberal media! you leftwing satanist! blaaaargh'

I agree that college campuses have really become liberal echo chambers. However, I don't think the answer is the government stepping in. Having a watch dog group for academic freedom would be a better idea. The political pressure that can be brought on to professors like Ward Churchill is an example that it could work.

Yeah, there's no call for such legislation on any level in any way. What I find interesting is most liberals I've talked to about don't even understand why someone would be motivated to introduce the idea to begin with. Most Republicans I talk to understand but dismiss it as idiocy. A couple thought it was a good idea, stupid buggers.

Yeah, there's no call for such legislation on any level in any way. What I find interesting is most liberals I've talked to about don't even understand why someone would be motivated to introduce the idea to begin with. Most Republicans I talk to understand but dismiss it as idiocy. A couple thought it was a good idea, stupid buggers.

well of course man, most will, the prob is the realm of the acedemic has to remain secular and individuals are biased thats human nature. I personally think the country should focus on making college affordable and accessable, not opressed and dumbed down, I think vanilla gorilla hit the nail on the head with this one, its a slippery slope.